All Episodes
Previous Next
April 21, 2021 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
28:49
Episode 1351 Scott Adams: Chauvin Verdict Hot Take
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, so I'm not going to do a full simultaneous sip, but I did bring my coffee, just in case you had yours.
Now, we're going to talk about this case and see if we can save the country at the same time.
Are you ready? But first, join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit, second one of the day.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
I think you'll like it. Go.
Yeah, now we're ready to talk about the case.
Well, as you know, the jurors have found Chauvin guilty on everything.
He's guilty on all the counts.
And I want to give you my reaction to it.
We'll let a few more people come in here.
And I would like to start out with the jury.
I would like to thank the jury.
Quite sincerely, as one citizen to 12 other citizens plus some alternates, thank you.
Like, legitimately, thank you.
Because I didn't want to do that.
And I don't think many of you would want to be in the shoes of the jury who had to take that on.
So, from the bottom of my heart, thank you.
Now, I've said this before...
That if you've never served on a jury, you need to do it.
You need to do it.
Because the feeling you get when you serve on a jury is that you gain an appreciation for the system that you just can't get from watching it from the outside.
It gives you this whole buy-in feeling, you're American, feeling that you may...
That the citizens do have some control over the process, etc.
So by all means, you should serve jury duty at least once.
Very serious advice.
And thank you to the jurors.
I took a look at...
There was some sort of horrible doxing list of who the jurors were.
Now, it didn't have names and addresses.
It just described them sort of generally.
And I have to say that having read that this morning...
I thought to myself that we were in good hands.
That the jury, based on their answers, based on the types of jobs they had, their experience, their age, I thought it was a pretty good jury.
And I think the defense did an excellent job of picking a credible jury.
Now, had things gone the other way, it would have been a really good situation, because they looked pretty credible.
There was a moment at the end of the proceedings when the judge was dismissing the jury today after he had read the verdict.
And I suppose this is the routine procedure, but I don't know if you caught this.
It's just this little moment where the judge releases the jury and he says, please stand for the jury.
Please stand for the jury.
And I thought...
That really is exactly the right ceremony, if you will.
That by that point in the case, there's nobody who deserved more respect than the jury.
And I just like that that's part of the system.
You know, just stand for the jury.
So, number one, do I agree with the jury verdict?
Does it matter?
I would say that if I were to make a decision based on what I know, it might have gone a different way.
But what they watched was this much.
This is how much they paid attention.
And this is how much I paid attention.
So because I respect the system, and because I think we've got some good jurors, I will not put my personal opinion above theirs because they put in the work.
They listened to the evidence.
They were patriots.
Still are. And if they ruled, I'm okay with that.
I'm okay with that.
That's the whole point, right?
The whole point of a jury of your peers is that they make the decision and you hope that you're good with that.
And I am. So, if I would have made a different decision, I also keep in mind I didn't have the information, I didn't see through it, and I trust them.
Now, what do we think about why they made their decision?
Because that's where it gets interesting.
And we're not mind readers, right?
Why did they make their decision?
Did they make their decision because the evidence that they saw and the experience that they had, which was also an emotional experience, was it because they all shared that experience and they were so quick to agree that there was just nothing to deliberate?
Because the deliberations were apparently very short for this sort of thing, for the amount of evidence was very short.
So there are two theories here.
One is Is that these are These are serious people who looked at the evidence, all agreed, and that's all there was.
Possible. That doesn't quite fit with what we as non-jurers observed, talking for myself here, because I can't really square what I saw, but again, I'm just looking through a keyhole at the evidence, and they're looking at the full case.
But through the keyhole, I don't really understand how they reached their decision if they used the facts.
But maybe they did. Because again, I'm looking through a keyhole.
How can I judge them through a keyhole?
Right? It wouldn't be reasonable.
But I can ask a question.
I can say, hmm, a couple ways to explain this.
Let me tell you the other way to explain it.
And I'm not saying this is the case.
But if it is the case, I'm also okay with it.
That if they made their decision without regard to the facts.
Because they have that option.
They're not supposed to.
They're heavily advised and all the pressure is for them to use the facts and only the facts.
But they don't have to.
And this is the benefit of having human beings as your peers.
They just don't have to.
Did they? Did they use the facts?
Well, the people or experts say it's unlikely.
They said it was unlikely before the jury deliberated.
They said this is the sort of case where it would actually be surprising if the facts mattered, because people saw the video, they had a certain emotional response, and maybe they were worried about the blowback later, but we don't know.
No way to know. So, one possibility is that the jurors just sent you a little bit of a signal.
Right? It's one possibility.
They may have sent you a little bit of a signal.
And that signal might be, something horrible happened here, but maybe two horrible things happened.
One is the tragedy itself, and the other is maybe the situation that the jurors were put into, to have to judge and then possibly put themselves in danger.
Not cool.
Is it possible, and I'll just put this down here as a purely speculative hypothetical, that there were at least some members of that jury who said, you know, if we're not going to do this according to the facts, and we know we're not, let's make sure everybody knows that.
Let's just go guilty across the board and do it fast.
Because that sends a little signal, doesn't it?
We don't know if we're interpreting it right, but it would fit within a theory that they were sending a signal.
Perhaps they thought that guilty on all counts would be such an obvious signal that they did not use the facts, that it would, you know, help make it easier for an appeal, maybe something like that.
We don't know. That would be pure mind-reading, guessing, speculating.
Who knows? Let's say that the jury made the decision, the other possibility, is it was purely political.
And they just made the decision because they wanted it to go that way.
Is that legal?
Yes. As far as I know, that's completely legal.
Because if it's an internal thought that they had, well, we'll never know about it.
That's not illegal to think stuff.
You know, thinking's not illegal.
And then voting any way that they want to vote is legal.
So if they wanted to just convict him without regard to the facts, they do have that option.
They just have to pretend they used the facts.
Is that what happened?
If it was, and let's say that one of the reasons...
Now, again, this is just speculative, right?
Let's say one of the reasons that they might have done such a thing...
No proof that they did, of course...
But one reason would be because they would be concerned about the societal blowback.
Not just themselves, but maybe society in general.
Suppose we someday learned that the reason the jurors voted the way they did was because they wanted to improve social cohesion, avoid riots, and also avoid trouble for themselves.
I'm kind of okay with that.
And this is the provocative part.
I'm kind of okay with that.
One of the things we do know about Derek Chauvin is that he's accused of some pretty bad stuff in addition to the Floyd stuff.
You know, there's an accusation that he didn't pay his taxes, etc.
And I have to admit, I'm not really a big fan of people who don't pay their taxes, so there's that.
You're a fool.
Justice is dead.
You're gone.
Now, we'll talk about justice, but here's the thing.
Suppose 12 of your peers decided that what's best for the world, and maybe best for them as well, suppose they decided that a guilty across-the-board verdict is Is what's best for society.
Even if it's very bad for this one defendant.
But they don't really care about him.
Because there's something he did, certainly in his attitude, or just, you know, his mannerisms, just the way he handled it, the way he didn't do more to help.
There's something just terrible there.
Right? It just feels terrible.
And so, I don't feel bad...
That there is some punishment coming for this individual.
And although I doubt the law and the facts had much to do with the outcome, all experts seem to be pretty unified that it's the emotional element to this and maybe the social element that made the difference.
If 12 of my peers, serious citizens, got together and they said, you know, we think this is best, maybe not paying so much attention to the facts, We still think this is best.
I trust them.
I trust them.
I don't know if I would have made the same decision, and I don't know if they made that decision.
I'm not even saying they did.
But if they did, I'd be okay with that.
Because it would be a serious decision by my peers, which I might not agree with.
I might not agree with, but I support the system.
And there's no information to suggest...
That the 12 jurors were anything but concerned citizens who wanted a good outcome for the country.
I'm just going to take that assumption.
Would that be fair to the person on trial?
No, it would not be.
I don't think there was any chance he could get a fair trial.
Do you? So, we could all day long say to ourselves...
He should have a fair trial.
And I would agree.
I would love a fair trial.
But what if it wasn't an option?
Right? Was it?
Was it really an option?
Had you moved him to some other location, was it an option then?
I don't think so.
I don't think it was ever an option.
So if the alternative that you were interested in Is the part where there's some jury in the United States who looks at only the facts, doesn't care about the emotional content, doesn't care about the country's outcome, and all they care about is getting the facts right?
That'd be great.
I'd be totally in favor of doing that and preserving the system as best we can by making sure that no innocent people, or let's say nobody who couldn't Nobody who didn't have at least some doubt about what they did.
You wouldn't want the people with some doubt to go to jail.
Now, no, not mind reader.
You're coming in late if you're saying that.
Everything I've said is with the labels speculative and what if.
So no mind reading required in anything I'm saying.
It's perfectly fine to speculate.
And in the context, I'm saying that if it's this way, I'm okay with it.
But if it's the other way, I'm okay with it.
And if it turns out it's the other way, I'm kind of okay with it.
Now, did Officer Chauvin get a fair trial?
No. No, he did not.
He did not get a fair trial.
Was it possible for him to get a fair trial?
Nope, it wasn't.
If it had been possible, then I'd be really angry that he didn't get one.
If it's not possible, I'm not going to worry about the hypothetical that in the imaginary world it was possible.
Now, there is an injustice here, I think, in terms of the rule of law and the facts of the case maybe not being as important as they should have been.
But the reason that you have humans is that they can make a human decision, and that's what happened.
I don't know if any of this will get overturned on appeals.
I'm not smart enough to know that.
But suppose all the jury did is kick it down the road, and that it has to get retried at some point, or there's an appeal or something.
That, too, might have been a good decision.
Because, you know, temperatures are high, and if you could just sort of drag it out a few years...
People just get tired of it.
They'll think they've already seen the story.
So, for those of you who are concerned that I was supporting Chauvin as being probably innocent because he's white, and you think that I am, of course I identify as black, but if you thought I was white and the reason that I thought he might go free is because he's white too, Here's something you don't know about white people.
White people will throw white people under the bus way faster than anybody else will.
It is kind of a superpower.
I'm not saying it's good or bad.
It's just a fact.
White people will destroy other white people in a heartbeat if there's any advantage to doing it.
I'm not saying it's good or bad.
It's just a fact. And if destroying this particular white person is good for the country, and maybe he had it coming in some sense, I just don't feel sympathy.
I don't.
I don't feel like marching, even if the facts were not in his case.
I just, I can't generate any sympathy because the way he was, really.
So somebody says, that's racist.
No, that's strategy.
That's strategy. A good strategy for life is that you are tough on people that you would be associated with because that's good for you.
It's just a good strategy.
If you instead decide to, let's say, make a hero out of somebody who was killed maybe in the act of criminal activity, that's a bad strategy.
It's just a bad strategy.
So on the strategy level, I'm happy.
Pothead boomers left the country worse off than they found it.
Maybe. Scott is baked.
No, not at the moment. But the night is young.
I hate to disappoint you, but I'm actually not high.
Could you hold both thoughts, Andrew says, that Chauvin behaved abominably and that mob justice sacrificed the individuals bad?
Yeah, you can hold all these thoughts.
I definitely think that Chauvin behaved badly.
I think that Floyd could have done things differently and helped himself.
That doesn't mean he had to or that he should be killed.
I think that the jury could have been different.
A lot of things could have been different.
It's not 4.20 yet, is it?
What time is it?
It's getting there. 25 minutes.
Accountability for Maxine?
Yeah, I don't think Congress people are ever held to account for anything in any serious way.
You know, all of you who are going to flog yourself to death over the evidence...
I saw somebody in the comments saying, how do you choke somebody out without leaving a mark?
Remember that you and I didn't sit through the trial, which is a real important point.
If you have an opinion that you think is more accurate than 12 of your educated citizens who saw the whole trial...
I would say, maybe.
Maybe you're that smart.
But I wouldn't make that assumption about myself.
I think they saw the evidence and you didn't.
So if they made a different opinion, at least for now, I'm going to trust them that they got it right.
At least in terms of what they wanted to do.
It's not 421.
Oh, it is. Oh, shit.
It is. No wonder you were saying that.
My clock was wrong. So, how about you?
Let me give you...
Let's get your comments.
How many of you are unhappy with the result?
Now, I do think that...
Yeah, I won't be doing that on YouTube.
YouTube is not the place that people spark up, so you'll be disappointed.
Um... Modern day lynching, I hear people say.
Well, we don't know that.
See, I would say that everybody who says the jury got it wrong, you have a big problem here, which is they saw the evidence, and they saw the presentation, and you didn't.
And apparently emotional content can be considered, and apparently the jurors can use whatever's in their head to make any decision they want, even though they're not supposed to.
So I'm actually fairly pleased with the outcome relative to the alternatives.
You know, if you could be magic and create alternatives that did not exist in the real world, well, I'd like them too.
But in a non-magic world, where the option of Officer Chauvin getting a fair trial really wasn't an option, this is the best case.
All right, and when I say best case, I mean for the rest of us, obviously not for him.
Let's see. What did you say?
Did I hear Ellen Dershowitz?
I did not. I saw somebody say that they thought he thought it would be overturned on appeal.
I would take his opinion on that over my own.
And if that happened, maybe that's the best outcome, right?
Let's see.
Are there more people weighing in on whether the appeal will work?
Thank you.
Jamie says, you thanked the jury, but they were all woke and wanted to do this.
We don't know that.
We do not know that.
You have to take a little bit of humility into this.
I think it was perfectly fair for all of us jabbering pundits to give our opinions while the trial was still on, and presumably the jurors weren't paying attention to us.
But once 12 people who listened to the evidence, and you didn't, at least not all of it, once 12 of your fellow citizens...
Make a decision. I feel like we have to back them until there's information that would suggest we shouldn't.
So I'm going to say back the jury and back the system, even if they didn't use data, even if they didn't use the facts.
Are you kidding me here, David says.
The jurors were doxed and threatened with dead pigs, and worse, they didn't convince.
Yes, you may have missed the first part.
If the reason that the jurors convicted is because they were afraid of being doxxed, I'm okay with that.
I'm okay with that.
Because that was their situation.
If 12 of my fellow citizens...
Is it sexist to say fellow citizens?
If 12 citizens and my peers decided that they were going to decide this way for their own physical security, I'm okay with that.
Totally okay with that.
And if later that's overturned on appeal, because they did that, I'm okay with that.
So I'm okay that they did it, if they did it, for their own safety, or even any part of it was for their own safety.
Totally okay with it.
I think they'll tell us.
I actually think that one of them, at least one of them, would say, you know, it certainly weighed on me that it would be safer.
That was part of my decision.
And if that turns into a mistrial or whatever it is, overturned, I'm okay with that.
Then why have trials?
The reason you have trials is that 12 of your peers get to decide your fate, and you would prefer that than having no laws or to have one person decide your fate in most cases.
Would you do the same if you were on the jury?
If I were on the jury, I would have seen the whole case.
So you can't ask me that.
If I saw what they saw, would I vote the way they voted?
Probably, because 12 of them did.
Zero people voted the other way.
So to imagine that if I had been there, I would have been the one person who didn't?
Maybe. But I'd have to say the odds are that I would have gone with the majority, just like the odds of anybody else.
I'm sounding like Trey Gowdy right now.
Well, that would be like the best thing anybody ever said.
Trey Gowdy is one of those people who, whenever he talks, I always think to myself, damn, you put that well.
That guy can explain stuff like nobody can explain stuff.
Just looking at your comments now.
Okay.
What did I think when I saw the video of his death originally?
Well, it looked like a murder. I mean, I think I had the same reaction everybody.
Horrified. It looked intentional on the video.
Doesn't mean it was, but the video looked certainly damning.
Somebody says, fear decided this outcome.
They're allowed to do that.
If the jury decided to just screw the whole system, vote guilty on everything because they knew it would be overturned, but it's the best thing they could do to protect their own family, I'm totally okay with that.
I back that decision, if that's what happened.
Biden said to the Floyd family that he's relieved.
Yeah, people are saying they're relieved, which tells you that we didn't have much choice where this was going to go.
Now, can you all deal with the fact that I could be happy with the verdict at the same time it doesn't look like it was fair to the defendant?
I feel like I can hold both of those opinions because it's a special case.
Should these jurors stay anonymous forever?
I don't think they have a choice because, you know, if you read...
Well, first of all, don't you think that all of the...
All of the co-workers and all the families of the jurors know who the jurors are.
There's probably nobody whose family doesn't know where they've been for a month.
So there's so many people who do know who the jurors are.
We're going to find out who some of them are for sure.
When I saw the list that described the jurors, it was stuff like, for example, a 42-year-old with this profession has this opinion.
If I read that, and I knew a 42-year-old in that profession, and I recognized the opinion, I'd kind of know who it was, probably.
So here's what we are waiting for, darkness.
The theory is that maybe the guilty verdicts will reduce the amount of rioting.
But I don't think we know anything until it's 11 o'clock at night, do we?
Somebody said that they thought the verdict was timed for 420 so that people would be too chilled out to riot, which would be hilarious if it were true, but I think it's a coincidence.
Well, I don't think that cops are going to support Chauvin.
So I heard people say they think there's going to be a blue flu and cops will protest the verdict.
I don't think so. I don't think so.
I don't think they liked what they saw.
And I don't think that they want Chauvin's reputation to spill back on them.
So I suspect that he's not going to get a lot of support from anybody.
Jury was out.
What up? Justice is blind to politics.
Sure it is. Alright, well that's all I've got for now.
I'm sure I'll have more in the morning and I will talk to you later.
▲
Export Selection